TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Following

The General US Politics Thread

Go To

Nov 2023 Mod notice:


There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.

If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines before posting here.

Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.

If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules when posting here.


In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.

Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM

CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#163876: Dec 22nd 2016 at 6:50:23 PM

[up] If that's not our place it's also not our place to be bombing other countries for human rights violations that don't contribute to the bottom line of American businesses in the hopes of changing that.

AceofSpades Since: Apr, 2009 Relationship Status: Showing feelings of an almost human nature
#163877: Dec 22nd 2016 at 7:16:29 PM

Which had nothing to do with what Kostya said and was a massive sidestep of what you were asked, Capsase. You literally just decided to change the goalposts of this conversation, dude.

Either address what we were saying or just don't respond instead of doing that, please.

CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#163878: Dec 22nd 2016 at 7:21:02 PM

My point was that we should not envision systematic problems, particularly those which we are all party to of things that Donald Trump is somehow a keystone of, even when he is a very visible participant. Because whenever he leaves power as all leaders eventually do, those problems will very likely remain, and will be no closer to a resolution than before.

M84 Oh, bother. from Our little blue planet Since: Jun, 2010 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
Oh, bother.
#163879: Dec 22nd 2016 at 7:26:48 PM

The difference between Donald Trump and the average consumer who buys clothes from The Gap or buys Apple products is akin to the difference between plantation owners and people who bought and wore cotton clothing.

At the very least, I'm not criticizing Donald Trump's involvement with sweatshops while also buying his products or staying at his resorts and hotels. If I were trying to claim that Trump taking advantage of sweatshops and foreign made steel were things to be mocked while also being a frequent guest at the Mar-a-lago or Trump Tower, then I'd definitely be a massive hypocrite.

edited 22nd Dec '16 7:33:03 PM by M84

Disgusted, but not surprised
CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#163880: Dec 22nd 2016 at 7:36:14 PM

[up] Both are participants in an unjust economic system, the difference is simply in the cards they were dealt.

Draghinazzo (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: I get a feeling so complicated...
#163881: Dec 22nd 2016 at 8:00:26 PM

edit: nvm

edited 22nd Dec '16 8:00:44 PM by Draghinazzo

AceofSpades Since: Apr, 2009 Relationship Status: Showing feelings of an almost human nature
#163882: Dec 22nd 2016 at 8:16:12 PM

If that was your point you should have said so far earlier instead of doing that verbal sidestepping, Capsase.

In any case I don't actually recall that any of us were blaming Trump specifically for that? I know Kostya didn't. M84 was only pointing out the inherent hypocrisy of Trump's platform in his posts.

CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#163883: Dec 22nd 2016 at 8:19:21 PM

[up] Sorry about being a bit roundabout, but my point was we shouldn't fall into the trap of partisan hysteria and lampoon Trump for things that a democratic administration could very easily be doing just because it's Trump; executive overreach for example is a systemic problem that has become steadily worse since the beginning of the war on terror, and will likely severely stain the legacy of the Obama administration. There are plenty of cases where people immediately jumped on something Trump said or did that was more or less business as usual in Washington. The problem in such cases isn't Trump, it's that such practices have become business as usual in Washington.

edited 22nd Dec '16 8:21:49 PM by CaptainCapsase

M84 Oh, bother. from Our little blue planet Since: Jun, 2010 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
Oh, bother.
#163884: Dec 22nd 2016 at 8:22:17 PM

[up] Thing is, even that looks even worse because Trump specifically ran as the anti-establishment candidate. Hell, he arguably won mostly because of that.

edited 22nd Dec '16 8:23:34 PM by M84

Disgusted, but not surprised
Kostya (Unlucky Thirteen)
#163885: Dec 22nd 2016 at 8:23:37 PM

While it would be nice if the US could improve the livelihood of sweatshop laborers I think it's a bit impractical. Short of sanctioning the offending nations or companies into oblivion I don't think we can really do much.

You also have the problem of there always being another source of cheap labor. Suppose we help China implement these laws. Then everybody could just move to Vietnam or something. So then we go there only after Vietnam has labor laws everybody moves to Cambodia and so on. This would be a decades long endeavor and that's being optimistic.

I think it's also worth noting that we're probably going to be in the battle of our lives to make sure these practices aren't legalized in the US. It sounds callous but we don't really have the luxury of helping others when our own house is in danger of crumbling.

[up][up]Obama was pretty liberal with executive orders because the Right absolutely refused to play ball. Trump has the support of congress, at least initially. It's a bit harder for him to justify.

edited 22nd Dec '16 8:24:50 PM by Kostya

CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#163886: Dec 22nd 2016 at 8:23:54 PM

[up][up] Indeed, and in such cases, point out discrepancies between Trump's promises and the realities, and explain what he might have been able to do differently to fulfill such promises.

[up] Trump will have an excuse the moment the GOP starts dithering. Alternatively, he'll just do it without informing the media, and we'll only find out about it halfway through the order being implemented. The fact of the matter is that failure of the Obama administration to dismantle the Bush era expansion of the executive power, and the increased centralization of power in the executive branch will likely be the main legacy of the Obama presidency that survives Trump.

edited 22nd Dec '16 8:27:11 PM by CaptainCapsase

Kostya (Unlucky Thirteen)
#163887: Dec 22nd 2016 at 8:28:17 PM

Frankly I think Trump feuding with the GOP and going over their metaphorical head is a good thing. Yes it allows him to implement more of his agenda but it will also spark a civil war in the party.

edited 22nd Dec '16 8:28:41 PM by Kostya

CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#163888: Dec 22nd 2016 at 8:34:25 PM

[up] Considering how he demolished his opponents in the Republican primary, a civil war in the GOP could end quickly and (by the standards of American politics) brutally in Trump's favor, be careful what you wish for.

Kostya (Unlucky Thirteen)
#163889: Dec 22nd 2016 at 8:38:18 PM

Either they bow down and work with him or he beats them into submission and they work for him. I'm not really seeing the difference. At least a civil war has the potential to damage his support base.

CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#163890: Dec 22nd 2016 at 8:39:41 PM

[up] The best case scenario is a low key conflict between Trump and the party that flares up every now and again rather than an outright standoff likely to end in a dramatic and decisive fashion. That would be the most effective limiter on Trump IMHO.

The less eventful a Trump Presidency is the better.

edited 22nd Dec '16 8:40:46 PM by CaptainCapsase

Kostya (Unlucky Thirteen)
#163891: Dec 22nd 2016 at 8:42:17 PM

But an uneventful presidency has less potential to turn voters off to him.

M84 Oh, bother. from Our little blue planet Since: Jun, 2010 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
Oh, bother.
#163892: Dec 22nd 2016 at 8:44:05 PM

I half expect any feud between Trump and the rest of the GOP to end with Paul Ryan kneeling in chains before Trump while stripped down to his skivvies.

You're welcome for the mental image.

edited 22nd Dec '16 8:44:22 PM by M84

Disgusted, but not surprised
CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#163893: Dec 22nd 2016 at 8:44:28 PM

[up][up] An eventful Trump presidency comes with a far higher chance of a mass casualty event. The best case scenario is uneventful mediocrity.

edited 22nd Dec '16 8:44:40 PM by CaptainCapsase

Kostya (Unlucky Thirteen)
#163894: Dec 22nd 2016 at 8:45:11 PM

[up][up]Heck, if we're really lucky Trump will start openly getting into twitter wars with Republicans. If he convinces enough supporters to not vote for them it could lead to them losing races.

[up]We cannot afford eight years of him. I'd rather he screw up royally and get ousted in four years than limp on for eight.

edited 22nd Dec '16 8:46:03 PM by Kostya

CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#163895: Dec 22nd 2016 at 8:47:23 PM

That being said, in regards to Trump's foreign policy, I would remark that it's abundantly clear that the current NATO strategy regarding Russia isn't working, and hasn't been working since the end of the cold war. Something needs to change in that regards, because the current tensions combined with Russia's precarious global position put us at the brink of disaster.

I doubt his approach will succeed, though what exactly that will entail depends on which of his advisors dominate in that area.

[up] Uneventful mediocrity will sink the Trump administration if the democrats can get a good candidate in 2020.

edited 22nd Dec '16 8:49:05 PM by CaptainCapsase

Draghinazzo (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: I get a feeling so complicated...
#163896: Dec 22nd 2016 at 8:55:42 PM

I don't think Trump can really be anything better than uneventful mediocrity, but that's an absolute best case scenario.

More likely I think is the mediocrity, yes, but with a handful of really big fuckups, which may or may not be visible or be considered fuckups in the eyes of the general public as opposed to just the democrat base.

Kostya (Unlucky Thirteen)
#163897: Dec 22nd 2016 at 8:56:34 PM

[up][up]It might but I think it's a less likely outcome.

DingoWalley1 Asgore Adopts Noelle Since: Feb, 2014 Relationship Status: Can't buy me love
Asgore Adopts Noelle
#163898: Dec 22nd 2016 at 9:08:22 PM

Trump vows to build 'Safe Zones' in Syria, and force the Gulf States to pay for it...

... So, Trump is going to start bombing Assad in Syria now, or what the hell?

CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#163899: Dec 22nd 2016 at 9:12:02 PM

[up] He's going to start bombing ISIS, essentially helping Russia prop up the Assad regime by eliminating the force occupying the eastern part of the country.

Balmung Since: Oct, 2011
#163900: Dec 22nd 2016 at 9:13:35 PM

Obama was pretty liberal with executive orders because the Right absolutely refused to play ball. Trump has the support of congress, at least initially. It's a bit harder for him to justify.
I'm actually going to need some citation on that "liberalness with executive orders" bit because unless there's a huge pile of secret executive orders or he's about to hand down a whole mountain of them, Obama has issued them at a lower rate (as defined by number of executive orders per year) than any president since the first of Grover Cleveland's two non-consecutive terms (though it also applies to Grover Cleveland's presidencies when taken together). Only three presidents since then have handed down fewer total orders - McKinley (assassinated early in his second term), Kennedy (assassinated before he could complete his first term), and Bush the Elder (one termer). Interesting, the most prolific user of executive orders since Truman was Carter, who issued an average of 80 executive orders per year, significantly more than Ford before him and Reagan after him.

Looking at history, the current rate of issuance of executive orders is actually fairly low, and it's absolutely nothing compared to the torrent of them issued by Theodore Roosevelt, FDR, and the presidents in between.


I half expect any feud between Trump and the rest of the GOP to end with Paul Ryan kneeling in chains before Trump while stripped down to his skivvies.
As terrible of a mental image as that is, I wouldn't mind seeing Paul Ryan thoroughly humbled by someone. Really, almost anyone.

edited 22nd Dec '16 9:15:14 PM by Balmung


Total posts: 417,856
Top